Delhi District Court
Sapna And Ors vs Ramjan And Ors on 9 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA,
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,WEST,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT no. 785/22
DLWT010062642022
1. Smt. Sapna
(wife of the deceased Sh. Sonu)
2. Tinku
(son of the deceased)
3. Neha
(daughter of the deceased)
4. Aditya
(son of the deceased)
5. Smt. Bimla (mother of the deceased)
W/o Sh. Om Pal
All R/o House no. 127, Gali no. 22,
Vipin Garden Extension,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Ramjan
S/o Sh. Bhawru
R/o D-167, J.J. Colony,
Shiv Vihar,
Vikas Nagar, Delhi
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited
At: 701, 7th Floor, Mercantile House,
K.G. Marg, Connaught Place,
New Delhi ...... Respondents
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:29:02 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 1 of 37 AND MACT no. 217/23 DLWT010025662023 Sh. Sonu S/o Sh. Yad Ram R/o H. No. 205, Gali no.22, Vipin Garden Extension, Uttam Nagar, Delhi ...... Petitioner Versus
1. Sh. Ramjan S/o Sh. Bhawru R/o D-167, J.J. Colony, Shiv Vihar, Delhi
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited At: 701, 7th Floor, Mercantile House, K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi ...... Respondents Date of Institution (MACT no. 785/2022) : 04.07.2022 (MACT no. 217/2023) : 21.03.2023 Date of reserving order/judgment : 09.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 09.04.2025 AWAR D
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of both the SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 17:29:11 +0530 Date: 2025.04.09 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 2 of 37 Detailed Accident Reports (DAR) filed by the IO in FIR no. 343/22 PS Ranhola, one is with regard to the fatal injuries sustained by Sh. Sonu S/o Sh. Om Pal (deceased in MACT No. 785/2022) and another with regard to the injuries sustained by Sh. Sonu S/o Sh. Yad Ram (injured in MACT No. 217/23) in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 25.03.2022 involving a vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing registration no. RJ22RB9966.
2. According to the DAR filed by the IO, documents annexed therewith as well as material available on record, on 25.03.2022, while the petitioner Sh. Sonu S/o Sh. Yad Ram (Petitioner in MACT no. 217/23) alongwith his friend namely Sh. Sonu S/o Sh. Om Pal (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') were going on a motorcycle bearing no. DL4SCV1597, which was being driven by deceased and at about 6:58 PM, when they reached near Shiv Vihar Police Chowki Nala Road, Vikas Nagar, Delhi, suddenly, a vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing registration no. RJ22RB9966 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'), which was coming from the front side and being driven by its driver in fast speed and in rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle of deceased and due to the forceful impact of the hitting, both the riders of motorcycle alongwith motorcycle fell down on the road and received injuries. It is further stated that driver of the Tractor came towards them after parking the offending vehicle at some distance and after seeing both the injured, he fled away from the spot alongwith the offending vehicle. It is further stated that deceased was rushed to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Delhi, wherein, he was medically examined vide MLC no. 2532/22 dated 25.03.2022 and thereafter, he was referred to LNJP Hospital, Delhi in the night of SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:29:19 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 3 of 37 25.03.2022, who succumbed to his injuries on 31.03.2022 and his postmortem was conducted at Maulana Azad Medical College and Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi vide PMR No. 163/2022 dated 31.03.2022. It is also transpired from the record that injured Sonu S/o Yad Ram (Petitioner in MACT no. 217/23) was medically examined in the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi vide Emergency Registration No. 76143 dated 26.03.2022 / 12:17:41 AM and undergone treatment for his injuries and the Department of Dental Surgery opined nature of his injuries as 'grievous' from dental view. It is also stated that FIR No. 343/2022 PS Ranhola was registered on 26.03.2022 with regard to the said accident upon the statement of the injured Sonu S/o Yad Ram.
3. IO filed both the DARs giving details of respondent No. 1 being the driver as well as owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent no. 2 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle. DAR were also accompanied by other relevant documents including final report u/s 173 Cr.PC; MLC and postmortem report of deceased; site plan of the place of accident; seizure memos of both the vehicles and documents of the offending vehicle; mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles; notice u/s 133 M.V. Act given to the owner of the offending vehicle and its reply; arrest memo of accused (respondent no.1 herein); statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC; disclosure statement of accused (respondent no.1 herein) etc. It is further stated that the deceased Sh. Sonu has left surviving his five legal heirs i.e. his wife, two minor sons, one minor daughter and his mother.
4. In both the cases, written statement was filed on SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 17:29:27 +0530 Date: 2025.04.09 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 4 of 37 behalf of respondent no.1/driver-cum-owner, wherein it is stated inter alia that accident was not caused by his vehicle; that he is the driver and registered owner and having a valid license and valid insurance; that on 26.03.2022, he was going towards Ranhola Road, where police officials stopped him and implicated him in a false case; that he was having a valid driving license and he used to drive the vehicle in a very cautious manner; that the DAR against the answering respondent is based on false and fabricated story with malafide intention to extort the money from him.
5. In both the cases, reply-cum-written statement filed on behalf of the insurance company/respondent no.2, wherein it is stated inter alia that Tractor no. RJ22RB9966 was insured vide policy valid from 25.10.2021 to 24.10.2022 in the name of Sh. Ramjan for agriculture and forestry purpose only and not to be used for hire and reward, however, the liability of insurance company is subject to terms and conditions of the policy; that the DL NO. RJ-22/DLC/09/84028 was valid from 05.03.2009 to 04.01.2023 in the name of Sh. Ramjan S/o Sh. Bhanwru for LMV (NT) only, whereas the driver was driving the tractor alongwith trolley filled with 'Malba', which became a commercial vehicle and therefore, driver should possess a license for Transport Vehicle, however, the driver was not holding a valid DL to drive the alleged offending vehicle; that the said tractor was attached with a trolley at the time of alleged accident and was being used for commercial purpose for hire and reward and without a permit under Motor Vehicle Act, which is a violation of policy terms and conditions and Motor Vehicle Act and therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:29:35 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 5 of 37 compensation to the petitioners.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in MACT No. 785/2022 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 20.01.2023:-
1. Whether the Sonu (since deceased) suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 25.03.2022 at 6.58 PM near Shiv Vihar Police Chowki Nala Road, Vikas Nagar, involving a vehicle no. RJ-22 RB 9966 (offending vehicle) being owned and driven by respondent no.1/Ramjan in a rash and negligent manner and insured with respondent no.2/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in MACT No. 217/23 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 27.09.2023:-
1. Whether the injured Sonu suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 25.03.2022 at about 6.58 PM near Shiv Vihar Police Chowki Nala Road, Vikas Nagar, involving a vehicle no. RJ-22 RB 9966 (offending vehicle) being owned and driven by respondent no.1/Ramjan and insured with respondent no.2/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:29:44 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 6 of 37 13.10.2023 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, both the above-mentioned matters were consolidated and evidence was directed to be recorded in case MACT No. 785/22.
9. In order to prove their case, petitioners got examined two witnesses. PW1 is Smt. Sapna (wife of deceased). Another witness is PW2 / injured Sh. Sonu S/o Yad Ram (Petitioner in MACT no. 217/23).
10. In respondent evidence, respondent no. 1 examined himself as R1W1. Respondent no.2/Insurance Company also got examined one witness viz. R2W1 Ms. Diksha Manhas, Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
11. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for petitioner as well as Ld. Counsels for respondents. I have gone through the record carefully and my issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1 (In both the cases).
12. It is the settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:29:52 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 7 of 37 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
13. PW-1 Smt. Sapna tendered her affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. (i) Copy of her Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 (OSR); (ii) Copy of her PAN Card Ex.PW1/2 (OSR); (iii) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.2 Ex.PW1/3 (OSR); (iv) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.3 Ex.PW1/4 (OSR); (v) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.4 Ex.PW1/5 (OSR); (vi) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.5 Ex.PW1/6 (OSR); (vii) Copy of PAN Card of petitioner no.5/Bimla Ex.PW1/7 (OSR); (viii) Copy of driving license of deceased Sonu Ex.PW1/8 (OSR) and (ix) DAR Ex.PW1/9. In her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for Insurance Co., she admitted that she is not an eye-witness to this accident.
14. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of injured /PW-2 Sonu (Petitioner in MACT no. 217/23) is very relevant. He filed an affidavit in evidence, which is Ex.PW2/A, wherein he deposed inter alia that on the date of accident i.e. 25.03.2022 at about 6.30 pm, he was going to Vikas Nagar from Vipin Garden alongwith his friend deceased Sonu on his motorcycle bearing no. DL4SCV1597, which was driven by deceased Sonu and he was pillion rider and when they reached near Shiv Vihar Police Chauki Nala Road, suddenly one Tractor Trolley bearing registration no. RJ22RB9966, coming in high speed, rashly, negligently, without blowing horn and in contravention of traffic rules, which was being driven by respondent no.1 and came to front side, hit his motorcycle and due to the forceful impact of hitting, they fell down on the road and suffered multiple injuries. He has relied upon the documents:
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:30:01 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 8 of 37
(i) Copy of his Aadhar Card Ex.PW2/1 (OSR); (ii) Copy of his PAN Card Ex.PW2/2 (OSR); (iii) Copy of his medical paper Ex.PW2/3; (iv) Copy of chargesheet Ex.PW2/4 and (v) Copy of complete DAR Ex.PW2/5 (Colly).
15. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2, he stated inter alia that the tractor was attached with a trolley and trolley was filled with stones (Patthar); that the road where the accident took place was about 20-25 feet wide; that there was no traffic on the road; that he had seen the tractor coming at a distance of about 20-30 feet; that though they were going on the side of the road, but tractor trolley came at a fast speed and caused the accident. He denied to the suggestion that deceased was driving the motorcycle at a fast speed and struck the tractor on its front or that accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of deceased Sonu or that he was deposing falsely. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1, he denied to the suggestion that he was riding the bike and fall from bike of his own or that deceased Sonu got injured by any other vehicle and he framed the false story to the police. He also stated that he was without helmet. He further stated that he identified the offending vehicle on the next day of incident in the police station at about 5:00 PM. He further stated that he did not remember for how long he was conscious. He further denied to the suggestion that he does not know anything about the accident and offending vehicle or that he had implicated the offending vehicle at the instance of police or that offending vehicle was not present at the place of incident.
16. It is duly established from the material available on record including the testimony of the PW2 Sh. Sonu S/o Sh. Yad SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 17:30:08 +0530 Date: 2025.04.09 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 9 of 37 Ram that PW2 Sonu accompanied deceased on his motorcycle, which was being driven by the deceased at the time of accident in question. The same also remained undisputed on the part of the respondents. Presence of PW-2/injured Sonu at the spot alongwith the deceased has been duly established. PW2 Sonu has categorically deposed about the mode and manner of the accident in question. He has deposed to the effect that on 25.03.2022 at about 6:30 PM, he alongwith his friend namely Sonu were going on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL4SCV1597, which was driven by the deceased and he was the pillion rider and when they reached near Shiv Vihar Police Chowki Nala Road, suddenly offending vehicle coming at high speed and rashly and negligently, being driven by respondent no. 1, hit against their motorcycle as a result of which, both of them fell down on the road and suffered multiple injuries. In his cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for Insurance Co., he has stated that the tractor was attached with a trolley, which was filled with stones. He also deposed that tractor trolley came at a fast speed and caused the accident. From the perusal of the testimony of injured / eye- witness PW2 Sh. Sonu, it is clear that there is nothing material has been elicited to disbelieve the version of accident as given by him. Plea of the respondents that it was deceased who was negligent due to which accident caused, has not been substantiated by any evidence. There is no cogent evidence available on record to hold that accident had either taken place due to the negligence or contributory negligence on the part of deceased or injured. Rather, evidence of PW-2 remained consistent on the aspect of accident, having been caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. It is evident from the SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:30:15 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 10 of 37 testimony of PW-2 that respondents could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross-examination. Said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross- examination. PW-2 himself is the injured having sustained injuries due to the accident in question. There is no reason as to why he would depose falsely against respondent no. 1. It is well settled that minor contradictions cannot be a ground to discredit a witness's testimony. The testimony of PW-2 remained unimpeachable on the aspect of accident in question. There is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of offending vehicle at the instance of petitioner herein.
17. Respondent no. 1 got himself examined and filed his affidavit in evidence Ex.R1W1/A, wherein he deposed on the lines of his reply to the DAR filed by him. He has relied upon the documents i.e. (i) Copy of his driving license Ex.RW1/1(OSR);
(ii) Copy of registration certificate of his vehicle; (iii) Copy of insurance policy and (iv) Copy of his Aadhar Card Ex.RW1/4 (OSR). In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, he deposed that he had not lodged any complaint against the false implication of his vehicle in the present case to the higher authority. He admitted that a criminal case is pending against him in the Court and on the day of accident, he was going from Vikas Nagar to Ranhola. He further stated that the vehicle was got released by him on Superdari from the Court and the tractor was not attached with any trolley. He denied to the suggestion that the accident took place due to his own negligence involving the offending vehicle or that the accident took place due to his own negligence, that is why, he had not made a SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 17:30:23 +0530 Date: 2025.04.09 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 11 of 37 complaint to the higher authority. He further denied that the police arrested him in this case or that he is on bail in this case. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2, he admitted that the police recorded his statement Ex. R2W1/P1 and it bears his signature at point A. He admitted that Ex. R2W1/1 is the policy of the vehicle involved in the present case. He further deposed that he had not made any complaint to the police officials that his tractor was not attached with a trolley. He denied that he is in collusion with the petitioner and making a wrong statement.
18. In his evidence, respondent no. 1 got himself examined and denied the involvement of his vehicle in the accident and also asserted his false implication in the present case. However, admittedly, he has not lodged any complaint against the false implication to the higher authorities. Interestingly, he has admitted his statement recorded by the police, which is Ex. R2W1/P1 bearing his signature at point A. In the said admitted statement Ex. R2W1/P1 of the respondent no. 1 Ramjan, which was recorded by the police, he has inter alia stated that on 25.03.2022 at about 6:20 PM, he was going in his tractor trolley filled with 'Malba' from Shiv Vihar towards Police Chowki and his tractor caused an accident with a motorcycle no. DL4SCV-1597 in which two boys were riding and he was driving the tractor trolley in fast speed and in rash and negligent manner. The said statement Ex. R2W1/P1, which is admittedly made by the respondent no. 1 before the police, itself shows the involvement of the offending vehicle in causing the accident, which was driven by the respondent no. 1 himself at the time of accident and thereby, it also caused dent to the SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:30:30 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 12 of 37 story projected by him to avoid his liability. There is sufficient evidence available on record showing the complicity of the respondent no. 1 in causing the accident while driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Hence, the self- serving statement of respondent no. 1 made through his affidavit in evidence does not offer him any help much less to absolve him of his culpability in causing the accident in question.
19. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 343/22 PS Ranhola was registered with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of final report U/s 173 CrPC filed by the petitioner) would show that same was registered on 26.03.2022. Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of aforesaid vehicle bearing No. RJ-22RB 9966 at the instance of petitioners herein.
20. Furthermore, DAR filed by the IO also include the final report u/s 173 Cr.PC filed by IO in FIR No. 343/22 (supra); MLC and postmortem report of deceased; site plan of the place of accident; seizure memos of both the vehicles and documents of the offending vehicle; mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles; notice u/s 133 M.V. Act given to the owner of the offending vehicle and its reply; arrest memo of accused (respondent no.1 herein); statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC; disclosure statement of accused (respondent no.1 herein) etc. Respondent no. 1 namely Ramjan (accused in State case) has been charge-sheeted (which is part of copies of criminal case available on record) for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:30:38 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 13 of 37 basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. Same also corroborates the ocular testimony of PW-2 to the extent of rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. The investigations were duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the vehicle, but also that it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident.
21. Moreover, as per the postmortem report of deceased Sonu vide P.M. Report No. 163/2022 dated 31.03.2022 filed by the IO alongwith present DAR, the opinion therein is given as "Death in this case occurred as a result of brain damage consequent upon blunt force trauma to head. All injuries are antemortem in nature, caused by blunt force i.e. impact against hard and blunt objects or surfaces, consistent with having been caused in a road traffic incident and being about 4-6 days old in duration prior to death." Said document has not been disputed from the side of the respondents and corroborates the ocular testimony of PW-2 as discussed above.
22. Furthermore, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the rashness and negligence of the driver (respondent no.1) would also be assumed by virtue of res ipsa loquitur. The very factum that the respondent no. 1 while driving offending vehicle had hit against the motorcycle and caused the death of the driver of the motorcycle and grievous injuries to its pillion rider, itself shows that offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, which became out of his control and he failed to apply its brakes at the SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:30:46 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 14 of 37 right time and thereby caused the accident. There was an implicit duty on the respondent no.1 to see that his driving did not endanger the life of any other user of the road. He has failed to exercise the caution incumbent upon him and has clearly neglected his duty of circumspection.
23. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that deceased Sonu S/o Sh. Om Pal sustained fatal injuries and another petitioner namely Sh. Sonu S/o Sh. Yad Ram sustained grievous injuries in road accident which took place on 25.03.2022 at about 6.58 PM near Shiv Vihar Police Chowki Nala Road, Vikas Nagar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. Accordingly issue no.1 stands decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.2
24. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
COMPENSATION IN MACT NO. 785/22 SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:31:02 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 15 of 37 (deceased Sh. Sonu S/o Sh. Om Pal) Age of deceased :
25. The petitioner no.1/PW-1 Smt. Sapna has deposed that deceased was of 29 years of age at the time of accident. She has filed and relied upon driving license of deceased Sh. Sonu, copy of which is Ex.PW1/8 and it shows the date of birth of deceased Sonu was 29.10.1992. The same remained undisputed on the part of respondents. Date of accident is 25.03.2022. As such, this fact stands concluded that age of the deceased was around 29 years 4 months at the time of accident. Assessment of Income of deceased :
26. Petitioner/PW-1 Smt. Sapna (wife of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that deceased was a professional driver and earning Rs.20,000/-
approximately per month. In her cross examination, she stated that deceased was working as a driver, who used to drive a transport (four-wheeler) vehicle. She further stated that she had not filed any document to show that her husband was working as a driver. She further stated that she has filed the driving license of her husband on record. She also stated that she had not filed any document to show the income of her husband. She denied to the suggestion that her deceased husband was not working anywhere and not earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
27. Ld. Counsel for petitioners argued that deceased was a professional driver and his driving license Ex.PW1/8 has already been placed on record and from the deposition of PW1, it becomes clear that deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- approximately per month. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 / Insurance Co. has vehemently argued that there is no SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 17:31:28 +0530 Date: 2025.04.09 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 16 of 37 cogent evidence available on record to prove the alleged vocation and monthly income of deceased and petitioners have failed to establish the same.
28. PW1 has deposed that her deceased husband was a professional driver and she has filed on record driving license of her deceased husband Sonu, which is Ex.PW1/8, which shows that it was valid for driving of 'LMV' and 'MCWG' class of vehicles (NT) upto 27.08.2039. As per the documents filed on record by the PW1 (wife of deceased), it becomes clear that they are resident of Delhi and deceased was also residing in Delhi at the time of accident. Admittedly, there is no document placed on record by the petitioners to establish the alleged monthly income of deceased. There is no other witness got examined by the petitioners in support thereof. Thus, for want of cogent and definite evidence being led by the petitioners with regard to the monthly income of the deceased, however, taking note of the driving skills of the deceased vide his driving license Ex.PW1/8, this Tribunal assesses the income of deceased to be at parity with minimum wages of skilled person in the State of Delhi which at the time of accident i.e. 25.03.2022 were Rs. 19,473/- per month. Application of Multiplier:
29. As held above, deceased was around 29 years 4 months of age at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable against the age bracket of 26 years to 30 years to determine the compensation, in view of pronouncement made by the Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
30. On the day of accident, deceased was aged about 29 years 4 months. Having considered the facts and circumstances SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 17:31:35 +0530 Date: 2025.04.09 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 17 of 37 of the present matter, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by the Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses:
31. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. As per the DAR as well as the affidavit of petitioner / PW1, there are five legal representatives / dependents of deceased i.e. his wife (petitioner no. 1), three children (petitioner no. 2 to 4) and his mother (petitioner no.5). Since, the deceased was survived by five dependents, one-fourth (1/4th) of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, as held in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
32. Thus, considering the aforementioned factors, the compensation for the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount 1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs. 19,473/- 2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% Rs. 7,789.2/-
3. Less 1/4th towards personal and Rs. 6,815.55/-
living expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs. 20,446.65/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 2,45,359.8/-
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:31:43 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 18 of 37 6. Multiplier (E) 17
7. Total loss of dependency Rs. 41,71,116.6/-
(Dx12xE=F)
33. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 41,71,117/- (rounded off). Hence, a sum of Rs. 41,71,117/- (Rupees Forty One Lacs Seventy One Thousand One Hundred and Seventeen Only Only) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
Non-Pecuniary Damages:
34. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), it has been held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs. 48,000/-, Rs. 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the legal representatives. Since, the deceased has left surviving his five legal representatives, therefore, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,76,000/- (48,000 X 5 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
35. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:31:51 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 19 of 37 S. No. Head Amount Awarded
1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 41,71,117/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 2,40,000/-
(48,000 X 5)
3. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
(I) Total compensation Rs. 44,47,117/-
36. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the petitioners (in MACT No. 785/22) are entitled comes to Rs.44,47,117/- (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Seventeen Only).
COMPENSATION IN MACT NO. 217/23 (Injured Sonu S/o Sh. Yad Ram) Medical Expenses:
37. PW2 Sh. Sonu i.e. the injured himself, has inter alia deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A that after the accident, he was taken to Deen Dayal Upadhayay Hospital, where he was medically examined vide Emergency Registration No. 76143 dated 26.03.2022/12:17:41 AM; that he suffered injuries all over his body and his teeth were also broken; that he has incurred medical and other expenses from 25.03.2022 to 01.12.2023, amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- approximately. In his cross examination, he stated that he has not placed on record any bill of his treatment. He denied to the suggestion that he had not spent Rs.1,00,000/- or any other amount on his treatment. He further stated that he was treated in government hospital and thereafter, he got treated himself privately. He further stated that he had not placed any document of his treatment taken privately.
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:31:57 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 20 of 37 He denied that he had not taken any treatment from any private doctor and that is why, he had not placed any such document on record.
38. PW2 injured Sonu has deposed in his cross examination that he was treated in government hospital and thereafter, he took the private treatment. However, admittedly, he has not placed on record any medical bill pertaining to his medical treatment. In the absence of any such medical bill, being placed and proved on record, by the PW2 / injured Sonu, no amount can be awarded to him under this head. Loss of Income on account of accident
39. PW2/Sonu has deposed inter alia in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A that he was working as a driver of battery rickshaw and earning Rs.18,000/- per month approximately. In his cross examination, he stated that he is not maintaining any account of his earning; that he is not an income tax payee and he does not have any driving license. He denied to the suggestion that he was unemployed.
40. Ld. Counsel for respondents have vehemently argued that petitioner has not led any cogent evidence qua his alleged vocation and monthly income and thereby, he has failed to prove the same. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has clearly deposed in his affidavit that he was working as battery rickshaw driver and earning Rs.18,000/- per month.
41. Admittedly, PW2 / injured Sonu was not having any driving license. There is no document placed and proved on record by the petitioner to prove his alleged monthly income. There is no other witness got examined by the petitioner in SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 17:32:05 +0530 Date: 2025.04.09 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 21 of 37 support thereof. As per Aadhar Card, the petitioner is a resident of Delhi. Thus, for want of cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioner with regard to his actual monthly income, this Tribunal assesses the income of the injured to be at parity with minimum wages of unskilled person in the State of Delhi which at the time of accident i.e. 25.03.2022 was Rs.16,064/- per month.
42. PW2 / injured Sonu has deposed in his affidavit that after the accident, he was taken to Deen Dayal Upadhayay Hospital, where he was medically examined vide Emergency Registration No. 76143 dated 26.03.2022 / 12:17:41 AM; that he suffered injuries all over his body and his teeth were also broken and he incurred medical and other expenses amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- approximately from 25.03.2022 to 01.12.2023. However, admittedly, he has not placed on record his medical and other expenses bills on record. He has also not placed such documents on record, which would show that he was under
treatment for the above-mentioned period. As per his medical document of Department of Dental Surgery, which is Ex.PW2/3, nature of his injury from dental view is 'grievous'. The same remained undisputed on the part of the respondents. Considering the totality of circumstances as well as nature of injuries suffered by him and material placed on record, this Tribunal is of considered view that he would not have been able to work for a period of two months. Thus, an amount of Rs. 32,128/- (Rs. 16,064/- x 2) is granted to the petitioner on account of loss of income due to the accident in question. Special Diet, Conveyance Charges & Attendant Charges
43. Petitioner (PW2) in his evidence by way of affidavit SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:32:11 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 22 of 37 deposed that his medical and other expenses are amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- approximately from 25.03.2022 to 01.12.2023. Ld. Counsel for respondents have argued that there is no documentary evidence available on record to substantiate the claim of the petitioner qua the alleged expenses under this head. Admittedly, there is no document placed and proved on record by the petitioner in support of his plea for incurring expenses under this head, at the same time, it cannot be overlooked that he had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred some amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular checkup and follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would also have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In the absence of any such documentary proof, this Tribunal while taking into consideration nature of injuries suffered by petitioner as well as surrounding circumstances, finds it appropriate to grant a notional sum of Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance charges; a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards special diet and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges to the petitioner.
Pain and Suffering
44. Petitioner/Injured has deposed that due to this accident he suffered financial, emotional, mental pain and suffering. As per Ex.PW2/3, the nature of injuries of the injured Sonu is opined as grievous by the Department of Dental Surgery, which remained uncontroverted on the part of the respondents.
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:32:18 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 23 of 37 Thus, he would have undergone physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view of the totality of facts and circumstances including the nature of injuries, duration of his treatment and surrounding circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs.25,000/-towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
45. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner Pawan Yadav is summarized as under:-
S Heads of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Medical expenses Nil
2 Loss of income Rs. 32,128/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-
4. Conveyance Rs. 10,000/-
5. Special diet Rs. 15,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs. 1,02,128/-
46. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the petitioner Sonu is entitled comes to Rs. 1,02,128/- (Rupees One Lac Two Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Eight Only). INTEREST ON AWARD (in both the cases)
47. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 04.07.2022 (in MACT No. 785/22) and 21.03.2023 (in MACT No. 217/23) respectively till realization. LIABILITY (in both the cases)
48. Now the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 2 / insurance company has sought to avoid its liability to pay the compensation amount on the ground that driving license of the respondent no. 1 was valid from 05.03.2009 to 04.01.2023 for SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:32:25 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 24 of 37 LMV (NT) only, whereas, he was driving the tractor alongwith trolley filled with 'Malba', which was a commercial vehicle, and therefore, he was not having driving license to drive the offending vehicle. It is further argued that the said tractor was attached with a trolley at the time of alleged accident, which was used for commercial purpose for hire and reward without a permit under Motor Vehicle Act, which is a violation of policy terms and conditions and Motor Vehicle Act and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation amount to the petitioners.
49. In order to substantiate the said plea, insurance company/respondent no.2 has examined Ms. Diksha Manhas, Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited as R2W1, who tendered her affidavit in evidence which is Ex.R2W1/A, wherein she deposed inter alia that vehicle bearing No. RJ22-RB9966 was insured in the name of Sh. Ramzan vide insurance policy valid for the period of 25.10.2021 to 24.10.2022; that a notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued through their advocate to the owner and driver to produce the original policy, RC, Fitness and DL of driver, which they failed to produce. She further deposed that owner of vehicle was using the alleged offending vehicle for carrying Malba i.e. construction material, whereas, the offending vehicle was insured for agriculture purpose and, therefore, driver-cum-owner has committed breach of terms and conditions of policy and Motor Vehicles Act and insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Copy of the insurance policy is Ex.R2W1/1; (ii) Copy of notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC is Ex.R2W1/2 and its postal receipt Ex.R2W1/3. In her cross SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 17:32:31 +0530 Date: 2025.04.09 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 25 of 37 examination, she stated that the said fact regarding the 'Malba' carried in the offending vehicle is mentioned in Fard-Inksaf in DAR and the same is Ex.R2W1/P1. She denied of deposing falsely.
50. In his evidence, respondent no. 1 got himself examined and filed affidavit in evidence Ex.R1W1/A. He relied upon the documents i.e. (i) his driving license Ex.R1W1/1; (ii) copy of RC of his vehicle; (iii) copy of insurance policy; and (iv) copy of his Aadhar Card Ex. R1W1/4. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for insurance company, he admitted that police recorded his statement as Ex.R2W1/P1 bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that he had not made any complaint to the police officials that his tractor was not attached with a trolley.
51. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2/ insurance company has vehemently argued that tractor of respondent no.1 was insured with the insurance company for agriculture and forestry purpose only and not for the purpose to be used for hire and reward; that seizure memo of the offending vehicle filed by the IO alongwith the DAR shows that the tractor trolley which was produced by its owner before the police was seized by the IO during the course of investigation; that respondent no. 1 in his cross examination has admitted that police recorded his statement Ex.R2W1/P1 bearing his signature at point A and the said admitted statement of the respondent no. 1 clearly establish that on 25.03.2022 at about 6:20 PM, respondent no. 1 was going in his tractor trolley filled with 'Malba' from Shiv Vihar towards police chowki, which caused an accident with a motorcycle no. DL4SCV1597. It is further argued that it is established on record that a trolley was attached with the insured tractor by the SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 17:32:38 +0530 Date: 2025.04.09 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 26 of 37 respondent no. 1, which was filled with 'Malba' at the time of accident and, therefore, the insured tractor was being used for commercial purposes, without having a permit under Motor Vehicle Act and also in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
52. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 has argued that respondent no. 2 / Insurance Co. has failed to establish that respondent no. 1 was carrying anything in his tractor or it was being used for any commercial purpose; that tractor of respondent no. 1 was duly insured with respondent no. 2 / Insurance Co. and it was not being used for any purpose in violation of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy and/or Motor Vehicle Act and the plea of the insurance company is not sustainable.
53. So far as the plea of the respondent no. 2 / insurance company that respondent no. 1 was not having valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle is concerned, the same is not found sustainable. Respondent no. 1 Ramjan has filed copy of his driving license which is Ex.R1W1/1. IO alongwith DAR has also filed Extracts of the driving license of the respondent no. 1 under signature of the official, Transport Department, Pali, Rajasthan, which shows that driving license of respondent no. 1 Ramjan was valid to drive the 'LMV' and 'MCWG' class of vehicle (NT) from 05.03.2009 to 04.01.2023. The said document remained undisputed on the part of respondent no.2/insurance company. There is no evidence brought on record by the respondent no. 2 to show that the driving license of the respondent no. 1 Ramjan was not valid for the purpose of driving SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:32:45 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 27 of 37 of vehicle in question. IO has also filed copy of the vehicle (offending vehicle) details verified by the Rajasthan Transport Department Authority, Pali-RTO, which shows class of vehicle as 'Agriculture Tractor (LMV)' and its unladen weight is 1880 Kg and laden weight 2260 Kg. In view of the same, it is clear that the offending vehicle falls under the category of light motor vehicle (LMV) and the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle was not required to obtain a separate endorsement on his driving license to drive transport vehicle of such class. It is well settled that if a driver is holding license to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. (In this regard, reliance is placed on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " Mukund Devangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2017(7) Scale 731 "). As such, the respondent no.2 has failed to prove on record that the respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident.
54. Now, coming to another limb of arguments on behalf of respondent no. 2/insurance company, whereby it sought to avoid its liability to pay the compensation amount on the ground that the offending vehicle i.e. tractor was attached with a trolley at the time of accident, which was used for commercial purpose for hire and reward without a permit under Motor Vehicle Act and also in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
55. In the case titled "Dhondubai Vs. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude since deceased through his LRs & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725", it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:32:53 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 28 of 37 Court that in a matter of the present nature, the law is well settled that when a tractor and trailer are involved, both the tractor as well as the trailer are required to be insured.
56. In the case titled "M/s Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3428" , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"Section 2 (28) is a comprehensive definition of the words "motor vehicle". Although, a "trailer" is separately defined under section 2 (46) to mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by motor vehicle, it is still included into the definition of the words "motor vehicle" under section 2 (28). Similarly, the word "tractor" is defined in section 2 (44) to mean a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load. Therefore, the words "motor vehicle" have been defined in the comprehensive sense by the legislature. Therefore, we have to read the words "motor vehicle" in the broadest possible sense keeping in mind that the Act has been enacted in order to keep control over motor vehicles, transport vehicles etc. A combined reading of the aforestated definitions under section 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of "motor vehicle" includes any mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer. Therefore, even though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself being a motor vehicle, the tractor-trailer would constitute a "goods carriage" under section 2 (14) and consequently, a "transport vehicle" under section 2 (47). The test to be applied in such a case is whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage of goods. Applying the above test, we are of the view that the tractor trailer SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:33:00 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 29 of 37 in the present case falls under section 2 (14) as a "goods carriage" and consequently, it falls under the definition of "transport vehicle" under Section 2 (47) of the M.V. Act 1988".
57. In the present case, injured / PW2 Sonu has deposed in his affidavit Ex.PW2/A regarding the causing of accident by the tractor trolley bearing registration no. RJ22RB9966. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for insurance company, he stated that at the time of accident, tractor was attached with a trolley which was filled with stones. Further, seizure memo filed by the IO alongwith DAR shows the seizure of the tractor no. RJ22RB9966 and trolley, which was produced by its owner (respondent no. 1). Furthermore, respondent no. 1 has admitted in his cross examination that police recorded his statement, which is Ex.R2W1/P1 bearing his signature at point A and the said admitted statement of the respondent no. 1, clearly established that on 25.03.2022 at about 6:20 PM, respondent no. 1 was going in his tractor trolley filled with 'Malba' from Shiv Vihar towards Police Chowki, which caused an accident with a motorcycle no. DL4SCV1597. Thus, it is established on record that at the time of accident, a trolley was attached with the tractor bearing registration no. RJ22RB9966 and it was carrying some 'Malba' and thereby, being used for commercial purpose. As per the insurance policy of tractor in question, it was issued for use of vehicle for agriculture and forestry purpose only and not to be used for hire and reward. Further, the trolley which was attached with the tractor of the respondent no. 1 was not insured with the respondent no. 2 / insurance company at the time of accident.
58. It is well settled that a tractor by itself is not a SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:33:07 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 30 of 37 transport vehicle, however, if a trailer is attached to the tractor and if the trailer is meant for carrying goods, the tractor and trailer taken together will become a "transport vehicle" under Section 2 (47) of the M.V. Act being a goods carriage. As per the Section 66 (1) of M.V. Act, no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place, whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted by a Regional or State Transport Authority.
59. In the present case also, the tractor trolly used by the respondent no. 1 would constitute a "goods carriage" and consequently, a "transport vehicle" under Section 2 of the M.V. Act and thus, it required a permit U/s 66 of the M.V. Act and has to be charged separate premium for 'Trolley'. However, there is no such permit of the aforesaid transport vehicle filed on record by the respondent no. 1 nor the trolley attached with the tractor was insured.
60. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that respondent no. 1 has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus, insurance company is entitled to recovery rights against the respondent no. 1 (driver as well as owner). In such circumstances, this Tribunal holds that the amount of compensation though would be payable by respondent no.2/insurance company but with recovery rights as against respondent no. 1 Ramjan. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
RELIEF (in MACT No. 785/22)
61. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 44,47,117/- (Rupees SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 17:33:14 +0530 Date: 2025.04.09 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 31 of 37 Forty Four Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Seventeen Only) (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of DAR i.e. 04.07.2022 till realization. The respondent no.2/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account no. 40714429271, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within 30 days from today. The respondent no. 2 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners. RELIEF (in MACT No. 217/23)
62. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 1,02,128/- (Rupees One Lac Two Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Eight Only) (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum in favour of petitioner Sonu and against the respondents from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 21.03.2023 till realization. The respondent no.2/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account no. 40714429271, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within 30 days from today. The respondent no. 2 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner.
Apportionment (in MACT No. 785/22)
63. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 16.08.2024 and considering the totality of circumstances of the case, share of petitioners in the SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:33:22 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 32 of 37 award amount shall be as under:-
S. No. Name Relationship with Share in the deceased award amount
1. Sapna Wife 45%
2. Tinku Son 15%
3. Neha Daughter 15%
4. Aditya Son 15%
5. Bimla Mother 10% Disbursement of Award Amount (in MACT No. 785/22)
64. In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Sapna shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 20,01,203/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs One Thousand Two Hundred and Three Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 2 namely Tinku shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 6,67,068/- (Rupees Six Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand and Sixty Eight Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 3 namely Neha shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 6,67,068/- (Rupees Six Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand and Sixty Eight Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 4 namely Aditya shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 6,67,067/- (Rupees Six Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand and Sixty Seven Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 5 namely Smt. Bimla shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 4,44,711/- (Rupees Four Lacs Forty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
65. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Sapna, a sum of Rs. 3,01,203/- (Rupees Three Lacs One Thousand Two Hundred and Three Only) shall be immediately released to her SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:33:29 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 33 of 37 through her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
66. The entire share amount of Rs. 6,67,068/- (Rupees Six Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand and Sixty Eight Only) alongwith interest of petitioner no. 2 Tinku be kept in the form of FDR(s) for the period till he attains the age of majority and thereafter a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith upto date interest thereupon be released to him in his MACT saving Bank Account while his remaining/balance amount alongwith interest is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
67. The entire share amount of Rs. 6,67,068/- (Rupees Six Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand and Sixty Eight Only) alongwith interest of petitioner no. 3 Neha be kept in the form of FDR(s) for the period till she attains the age of majority and thereafter a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith upto date interest thereupon be released to her in her MACT saving Bank Account while her remaining/balance amount alongwith interest is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
68. The entire share amount of Rs. 6,67,067/- (Rupees Six Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand and Sixty Seven Only) alongwith interest of petitioner no. 4 Aditya be kept in the form of FDR(s) for the period till he attains the age of majority and thereafter a SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 17:33:36 +0530 Date: 2025.04.09 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 34 of 37 sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith upto date interest thereupon be released to him in his MACT saving Bank Account while his remaining/balance amount alongwith interest is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
69. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 5 Smt. Bimla, a sum of Rs. 1,44,711/- (Rupees One Lac Forty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven Only) shall be immediately released to her through her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
70. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
71. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant i.e., the savings bank account of the claimant shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:33:43 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 35 of 37 account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
Disbursement of Award Amount (in MACT No. 217/23)
72. Statement of petitioner in terms of provisions of MCTAP was recorded on 16.08.2024. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that the entire award amount of Rs. 1,02,128/- (Rupees One Lac Two Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Eight Only) alongwith interest shall be immediately released to the petitioner Sonu through his MACT saving bank account.
73. Respondent no. 2 i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount in both the cases with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch is directed to transfer the award amount alongwith SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:33:51 +0530 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 36 of 37 interest, as stated hereinabove, in the MACT saving bank accounts of claimants/petitioners respectively, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
74. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
75. Form XV, Form XVI and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
76. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir .
77. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
78. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP).
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 17:33:57 +0530 Date: 2025.04.09 Announced in the open Court (SACHIN GUPTA) On 9th April, 2025 P.O. MACT-02 (WEST) THC/Delhi/09.04.2025 MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025 MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 37 of 37